Re: [manet] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ronald,

Thanks again for the reviews! See below for responses.


On 7/15/2021 1:13 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't wrote:
>
> Hi Authors, MANET WG participants,
>
> Please find below my long overdue comments on 
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-extension, one of three documents related 
> to credit-based flow control that have been in WGLC for a long time. 
> (With chair wig off).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ronald
>
> -- 
>
> Major Issues
>
> ============
>
> None
>
> Minor Issues
>
> ============
>
> Section 1, Introduction, contains the somewhat puzzling sentence 
> "Traffic sent by a router will use traffic flow classification 
> information provided by the modem to identify which traffic is 
> associated with each credit window." I would think it is the router, 
> as opposed to the traffic, that uses the classification information. 
> The traffic, which may originate from an upstream source, is what it 
> is. But then the question is HOW the router should make use of the 
> classification information. Should it re-mark certain traffic flows 
> (i.e., alter their DSCPs) to ensure that they receive preferential 
> treatment (i.e., are throttled last in case of congestion)? Can the 
> router assume that the modem understands Per-Hop Behaviors? In my 
> opinion, at the very least the sentence quoted above should be 
> rephrased; in addition some further clarification on the mechanism 
> foreseen could be helpful.
>
Same change as your other review, i.e., drop "Traffic sent by"

>
> Nits
>
> ====
>
> Section 1
>
> 3rd para: "... to provided credit window based flow control ..." => 
> "... to provide credit window based flow control ..."
>
thanks
>
> 3rd para: "... based on on DLEP destination and DiffServ [RFC2475] 
> DSCPs (differentiated services codepoints)." => "... based on DLEP 
> destinations and DiffServ [RFC2475] DSCPs (differentiated services 
> codepoints)."
>
yes
>
> Section 2
>
> 1st para: "... the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub Data Item," => 
> "... the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item," (following 
> the precedent set by RFC8651)
>
yes.
>
> Appendix A
>
> "The sub data item format was inspired ..." => "The Sub-Data Item 
> format was inspired ..." (see above)
>
agreed.

Thanks again.  Stay tuned for the update.

Lou

> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If 
> you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by 
> mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the 
> message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for 
> the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting 
> from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
>